KSP lacks something...

[Kerbal Productions]

Astronomy.

It might have asteroids, comets, planets, moons, etc.

But I watched Linx's YouTube videos about KSP, and I saw that Jool is larger than Kerbol (aka The Sun

I deeply processed this, and I think that Kerbol will just be a star remnant, but it shines so bright.

Another thing is that when 2 planetary objects collide, they aren't forming any fragments or such. It just...

KSP is good in aerospace, but not in astronomy. Good heavens. 

[kerbiloid]

Huge asteroids could generate static 3d objects like "Craters", put on the ground at the collision place. No need in landscape deforming.

And mysterious huge iron rocks.

Some of them could spread monoliths.

Edited December 26, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Superfluous J]

 

2 hours ago, Helvica_Ring_Scientist said:

But I watched Linx's YouTube videos about KSP, and I saw that Jool is larger than Kerbol (aka The Sun

Jool is 6,000km radius

Sun is 261,600km radius.

If Jool was bigger than the Sun you'd be able to make it out as a sphere from Kerbin.

2 hours ago, Helvica_Ring_Scientist said:

Another thing is that when 2 planetary objects collide, they aren't forming any fragments or such

Planetary objects don't collide in the game. If you're talking asteroids making craters then sure, but that's not a realism decision. It's a capabilities of the engine decision.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Superfluous J

[Gargamel]

15 hours ago, Helvica_Ring_Scientist said:

KSP is good in aerospace, but not in astronomy. Good heavens.

Until very recently the skybox (the stars and such you see when looking up) included numerous nebulae and galaxies clearly visible.   And not as just fuzzy dots.   KSP has never been known for accuracy in Astronomy nor Planetary Science. 

Moved to KSP discussion. 

[Nuke]

23 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Planetary objects don't collide in the game. If you're talking asteroids making craters then sure, but that's not a realism decision. It's a capabilities of the engine decision.

i think the engine is capable. playing with kerbal konstructs and using the terrain decals to flatten terrain for base construction, that kind of thing could be modified to create smallish craters. but its a little out of the scope of the game. the asteroid day features were added to play around with the asteroid capture and redirect mission. its not meant to go all free navy on kerbin. 

[Guest]

On 12/26/2020 at 2:42 AM, Helvica_Ring_Scientist said:

KSP is good in aerospace, but not in astronomy. Good heavens. 

But KSP is a rockets game, I don't think KSP should go into the bottomless pit of technical stuff.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

There's actually quite a lot that KSP lacks, but that's what happens when you build something like it from the ground up with basically no experience.

Personally, KSP does what it intended well enough for my tastes. I'd rather them tackle bugs than anything like this, or make wheels work, or make legs work.....see what i mean?

[Curveball Anders]

On 12/26/2020 at 10:42 AM, Helvica_Ring_Scientist said:

KSP is good in xxxxspace

KSP is good at simulating rockets and space travel, it's not very good (as in awful) when it comes to aerodynamics.

I'm glad that the game allows me to reduce atmospheric flight to short fractions of time to survive.

Expecting KSP to expand into proper astronomy would be to expect your phone's auto correct to transform your feeble excuses for being late to a meeting into a Shakespearian sonnet.

A spade is a spade, it's usable but very bad as a hammer.

[Kerbart]

On 12/27/2020 at 7:23 AM, Nuke said:

 its not meant to go all free navy on kerbin. 

I see what you did there